In a different case, when
a grieving father was going on a hunger strike to protest for an
independent investigation to determine what caused the sinking of the
Sewol
that
took his child's life, Ilbe members staged a “binge-eating”
counter-protest a walking distance away from the man because they
thought that he was being used by progressive lawmakers to
destabilize the conservative government.

According to a Professor
Choung Wan, from Kyung Hee University Law School, who was quoted by Claire Lee in the
Korea Herald
for this article,
the former was a terror attack and an act of hate crime whereas the latter was a hate crime that was also an act of violence and discrimination.

In regards to the latter, Professor
Choung said,
“Expressing your opinion is one thing, but if you are hurting
others in the process, it’s called violence and discrimination.”

Hate
crimes and hate speech often get lumped together, but I think it
is important to distinguish the two. For one, the former is an act
that is committed against another individual that violates his right
to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. On the other hand,
the latter is simply a form of speech – though admittedly one of
the more vile types.

As
such, I thought that it'd be best if I wrote about the two topics
separately.

Hate
Crimes

As
I read what Professor Choung had to say about the matter, I could not
help but have some additional thoughts of my own.

Firstly,
I had to wonder if Professor Choung thinks it is acceptable to have a
government that passes laws that attempt to regulate the content of
people's thoughts. A little Big Brother-ish, if you ask me.

Secondly,
even if Professor Choung does think it is acceptable to have such
laws, his personal opinion is made irrelevant by the fact that such
laws are doomed to fail. Case in point, lawmakers can pass all the
laws they want to make people think that prostitution is immoral.
None of it will change the fact that prostitution will always remain
the world's oldest profession, and theirs the second-oldest; and not
by much!

Thirdly,
with the exception of those stories that involved the severely mentally ill, I do not
recall reading about any crime that was committed against another
person out of love. In fact, most criminals either hold indifference
or contempt for their victims. Doesn't that mean that almost all
crimes are hate crimes? Furthermore, wouldn't that mean that
designating some crimes as “hate crimes” but others as not mean
that some crimes will be more punitively punished than others for no
other reason than some people's arbitrary perceptions of hate?

Furthermore,
though it is true that intent matters when a crime is committed, I do
not see how designating a crime as being “hateful” does more than
the current existing judicial system. For instance, let's say that a
man has planned to murder his child in order to collect insurance
benefits, and he succeeds in his grisly act. Now let's say there is a
second man who planned to murder his child because the child is not
his – the child is his wife's whom she had from a prior marriage –
and an interracial one at that to boot. This second man despises the
child for not being his and for being “a racial abomination.” The
second man also succeeds in his grisly act.

In
either scenario, would the child be any less or more dead? Would either act be any less or more premeditated?Yes, intent
matters but that is already handled by the justice system.

It will attempt to regulate the content of people's thoughts, and will
effectively criminalize unpopular thoughts.

It will arbitrarily make some laws and crimes worse than others. Though laws can never
be completely objective, it is paramount to keep it as objective as
possible.

It
will potentially punitively punish people more than they deserve to
be punished. The law is supposed to dispense justice; not revenge.
Proportionality is key.

It
will serve as a redundant law that does nothing that the current
legal system does not already do besides serving a political
purpose.

What
it will NOT do is actually succeed in reducing crimes.

Hate
Speech (Part 1)

It's
worth repeating that Professor Choung said, “Expressing
your opinion is one thing, but if you are hurting others in the
process, it’s called violence and discrimination.”

Let's
take an example. Let's say there is a man who thinks that all Koreans
are an inferior race that ought to be exterminated. Let's also say
that this man is very vocal about that belief. However, he does not
act upon it, and simply tells whoever is willing to listen that all
Koreans should be killed.

Such
a man would certainly be considered obnoxious, among other things,
but can anyone objectively prove that he has hurt others by speaking
his mind? Of course the things that he says could hurt some people's
feelings, but hurt feelings are very difficult to quantify. Some
people might get into a fit of rage, others might be saddened, while
others might not even care.

Now
if it can be proven that the man incited violence through his words,
itself no easy task, then we would be talking about a very different
subject. However, like the intent behind the committing of a crime, the incitement of
violence is already something that the legal system deals with. The current legal system does not need any further reinforcement from hate speech laws.

Going back to Ilbe's “binge-eating” protest, there is no argument whatsoever
that it was done in very bad taste. No one with a properly
functioning brain could possibly see that as civilized behavior. But
did they actually cause harm to others? I am sure that the grieving
father, who has my deepest sympathies, suffered emotional distress.
And there are certainly existing laws that deal with that, too.
Provided that there is a clever enough lawyer under his employ, I am
sure that the man could claim for some damages. However, the man
would have been able to do the same had the counter-protesters been
members of a French mime troupe who were miming people drowning.

But
the important question is whether or not the “binge-eating”
counter-protest was an act of violence. Did the act, as atrocious as
it was, threaten the man's common rights or civil rights or civil
liberties? Did he have to fear for his life or safety? Unless such a
case can be made, it is quite farfetched to claim that the
counter-protest was an act of violence.

As
for Professor Choung's claim that expressing opinions that hurt
others is a form of discrimination, I cannot even begin to comprehend
how Professor Choung came to that conclusion.

Freedom
of speech is one of the most important bedrocks of a democratic
republic. It is based on the belief that each individual is his own
sovereign,
and, therefore, has the fundamental right to hold any thought that he
deems worthy – even if that thought seems despicable to everyone
else in the world. By extension, being prosecuted and/or persecuted
for no other reason than for expressing that thought is a violation
of that sovereignty.

The
fact of the matter is that when people defend the right to free
speech, no one ever defends Thomas
Jefferson or Nelson
Mandela. That is because neither Jefferson nor Mandela needs to
be defended. The words that they left behind have moved others to the
point that they themselves moved mountains. If humanity ever becomes
extinct and we are to be discovered by archaeologists of another
species in the future, I greatly hope that they will remember us as
the species that produced Jefferson and Mandela, rather than as the
species that produced “2
Girls 1 Cup.”

No,
we do not need to defend Jefferson or Mandela. What we do need to
defend are the dregs – those most offensive and disagreeable. To
quote none other than Larry
Flynt:

“If
the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will
protect all of you. Because I'm the worst.”

All
over the world, from college campuses to parliaments to anonymous
internet forums, more and more people seem to be forgetting just how
important free speech is. Many
people are all too willing to add a caveat here or a qualification
there to say “Hey, I believe in freedom of speech, too, but you
can’t say that.”

What
many people who accept such a thought hardly ever seem to consider is that the that
they
consider unacceptable can always change in the future, and not in a
way that they might necessarily approve of.

Criminalizing
certain actions in order to protect the rights of others is one
thing. Criminalizing thought is an entirely different thing that is
not only doomed to fail, but also anathema to the principles on which
a free society must be based.

Combating
Prejudice

What
I found most telling about Professor Choung's view of the world was
when he reportedly said:

“And
there is no ‘natural’ way of combating prejudice. For many, it
does not go away ‘naturally.’ That is why we need to regulate
hate speech. Seemingly innocuous prejudice may snowball into more
pernicious forms (when expressed and shared by many), and result in
dangerous consequences.”

Is
there truly no “natural” way to combat prejudice? For those who
believe that, then by necessity, they must believe that racism in
America only began to be combated in 1964 when the Civil
Rights Act was passed. Never mind that anti-racist movements can
be traced
back to the Renaissance. Furthermore, can anyone offer any
evidence of regulating hate speech leading to an end or decrease in
prejudice?

If
Professor Choung is truly afraid of innocuous prejudice snowballing
into more pernicious forms when they are expressed and shared by
many, wouldn't it make more sense to let people who hold such views
to express their thoughts publicly so that they may compete in the free marketplace of ideas? Or does he doubt the strength of his own views
that he fears they may wither in the face of binge-eating fools?

One
would hope that a legal scholar would know better than to make
statements without offering evidence, and to have given serious
thoughts to the unintended consequences of the laws that he proposes.

Conclusion

Article
21, Section 1 of the Republic of Korea Constitution says:

All
citizens shall enjoy freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of
assembly and association.

Section
4 says:

Neither
speech nor the press shall violate the honor or rights of other
persons nor undermine public morals or social ethics. Should speech
or the press violate the honor or rights of other persons, claims may
be made for the damage resulting therefrom.

And
Article 37, Section 2 says:

The
freedoms and rights of citizens may be restricted by Act only when
necessary for national security, the maintenance of law and order or
for public welfare. Even when such restriction is imposed, no
essential aspect of the freedom or right shall be violated.

The
law guarantees the people's right to free speech and already
specifies when and how free speech might need to be curtailed. It is
true that despite the existence of these laws, people's freedom of
speech is not always respected. However, that is a different topic.
What is important is that it is difficult enough to protect freedom
of speech as it is without having to further contend with hate speech
legislation.

The
only other argument that those who argue for the passing and
implementing of hate speech laws seems to be that other countries have
already passed hate speech and hate crime laws. The Korea Herald
article makes sure to point out countries like Germany, the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Croatia, Norway, and the
Netherlands as paragons of virtue for having passed their hate speech
and hate crime laws.

I
don't understand how anyone could think that such an argument is
convincing or deep.

Engaging
in acts that are racist or sexist or any other motive based on hate
is ugly. But color me unconvinced and unimpressed when people make
baseless claims about the dubious virtues of legislation.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

By
now, most people must have heard about the incident in Korean Air
that has been dubbed “Nut
Rage.”

For
those who are still unaware, a
Korean Air executive, Ms. Cho Hyun-ah, who is the airline's head of
cabin service and the daughter of the company's boss, created a
ruckus on one of her company's planes that was headed from New York
to Incheon. Ms. Cho had caused a delay in the flight when she
demanded that a senior crew member be removed from the flight when
the crew member failed to serve macadamia nuts “properly.”
According to the story, the crew member served Ms. Cho the
nuts in a bag, instead of serving
the nuts on a plate.

When
the news broke out on social media, justice was swift and terrible.
Ms. Cho resigned from her position as head of cabin service, but
continued to be an executive at the company. When that failed to
satiate the fury of the Internet mob, she resigned from all of her
roles from the company.

Justice
had been served. Seemingly.

In
a way, I can understand where Ms. Cho came from (assuming that the
anger was purely based on her disappointment over improper service;
and that her attitude having been the result of being her father's
daughter did not play any role in her action).

What
she did lack was tact. She could have resolved the situation so much
more amicably. She could have given a stern one-on-one pep talk. She
could have gently reminded the crew member of the company's
regulations about how to properly serve food to first class
passengers. However, she chose to be as dramatic as possible and
turned herself into a symbol that represents everything that people
hate about the rich.

But
we have to go back to the question. Does capitalism, indeed, breed
nepotism? This question is not without merit. After all, Ms. Cho is
her father's daughter.

However,
I am disinclined to agree with the statement. I do not think that
capitalism breeds nepotism at all.

Firstly,
we have to recognize one thing – no matter how much we may talk
about individualism, human society has always revolved around the
family. Before
meritocracy and individualism, children joining the family was
standard practice, and in many ways, it still is.

As
time has progressed, with social and economic equality becoming more
important to many people, nowadays people like to imagine that they
are more ambivalent about family ties. However, there seems very
little evidence to say that is actually the case.

Therefore,
it would seem that nepotism is far older than capitalism.

Secondly,
generally speaking, the children of wealthy parents tend to be highly
qualified individuals in their own right. Though admittedly they went
to the best schools because their wealthy parents paid for their
pricey education, it does not change the fact that they have often
gone to the best schools. Furthermore, due to the pressure that is
often placed on them to be excellent in whatever they do, they often
excel in their own right.

I
have heard many people point to these female Asian leaders to express
their disappointment with the American people's
inability/unwillingness to (yet) elect a woman to the White House.
However, those people are only telling a half-truth. What they don't
tend to mention is that people from India, Indonesia, Myanmar,
Pakistan, the Philippines, and Korea appear to be more willing to
elect women because people in those societies tend to value family
affiliations more.

Whether
we like to admit it or not, women's advancement (at least in
politics) often seems to begin at the altar.

So,
due to the historical precedence that nepotism has over capitalism,
and that it is not unique to humans, it would appear that capitalism
does not breed nepotism. However, considering that the rich tend
to marry only among themselves, it would seem that at the very
least, capitalism does enforce nepotism and vice versa. After all,
one of the main reasons why people continue to work to earn more
money than they need for themselves is to ensure that they can
provide a more comfortable life for their children.

Is
there a cure for nepotism? Well, I am not entirely sure if nepotism
is actually a disease that requires a cure. More than anything else,
it seems like it is an ingrained part of our more inner-psyche that
cannot be easily extricated by mere legislation. Perhaps if all
humans evolved to treat the rule of law as sacrosanct, we may see
changing attitudes toward nepotism (and perhaps even toward the
notion of family itself). Until, then, however, whether the
prevailing economic system is based on laissez-faire capitalism,
crony capitalism, corporatism, welfarism, socialism, communism, or
whatever other -ism there is, it seems that we will not be ridding
ourselves of nepotism any time soon.

Subscribe to

Google+ Followers

About Me

My name is John Lee and I am currently the editor and writer behind the independently-run blog, “The Korean Foreigner.”

Recently, I have also begun to work as a freelance copy editor for Freedom Factory. Here, with permission from Freedom Factory, I shall post English translations of Freedom Factory’s weekly newsletter “Freedom Voice.”